September 22, 2016

"President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet."

The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship – a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with the President’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost.

Hillary Clinton, in her tech policy platform, says she supports the transition as a "critical step towards safeguarding the internet’s openness for future generations."

How is the change a safeguard? Is this Newspeak? Here's the context, from her website. See if you can fathom this:

Promote Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance: Hillary believes that internet governance – the coordination of the technical systems that allow the internet to function seamlessly across the globe – should be left to the global community of engineers, companies, civil society groups, and internet users, and not to governments. That is why as Secretary of State she championed the “multistakeholder approach” to internet governance and vigorously fought back against efforts by national governments to control the internet through government-led multilateral organizations, such as the International Telecommunications Union. She supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders, viewing the transition as a critical step towards safeguarding the internet’s openness for future generations. She will continue to fight to defend the internet from government takeover and to empower those internet governance organizations that advance internet openness, freedom, and technical innovation.

ADDED: Here's the Wikipedia article on "multistakeholderism." It includes this quote from a critic of the idea:

"In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."

I'm not an expert on this notion. Perhaps Hillary could be asked to explain it at the debate that occurs before October 1st.

What is it with progressives and freedom?They afraid somebody might be offended?They afraid they can't control what people think?The first amendment was just waiting for the internet. They were made for each other.The usual suspects will , of course, endorse this move out of "fairness".

Why do Democrat presidents give away American property? Carter gave away the Panama Canal and Obama wants to give away the internet. At least Carter had the excuse the lease on the canal zone was about to expire. What's Obama's excuse (other than he trusts non-Americans more than Americans)?

Absolutely this is Newspeak. Turning the internet over to some UN affiliated group makes sense only to those that think sending UN Peacekeepers in to rape the victims in already destroyed areas makes sense. I've been waiting for someone to just actually come out and tell us that "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength".

Why does this surprise anyone, Democrat elites are Anti-American No Border Marxist Globalist, they abandoned traditional liberalism's idea of freedom a half century ago. I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and some sort of liberation theology Christian, but what has he done in the last eight years a muslim president wouldn't have done? Relinquishing control of the internet will have dire consequences for freedom of speech across the globe.

I'm not defending Carter, but the Canal Zone was leased. The lease hadn't expired when Carter gave it away, but its strategic value to us was negligible by 1980. Our surface navy has for decades been based on carrier task forces. Since the commissioning of USS Enterprise, a ship with too much beam to transit the canal, the writing was on the wall. Carter did the give-back for the same reasons as Obama is doing his give-away — pure self-interest unalloyed with any regard for law or the taxpayer — but since Carter was giving back leased property of little real value to the Navy his grandstanding was less damaging to the nation.

I hope Trump's people monitor this blog because I have a great line for him, one that will kill a flock of birds with one stone. If the 'net giveaway comes up at the debate Miz Hillary is bound to say, "Highly qualified technical experts have assured me that relinquishing control of the Internet is good," or words to that effect. To which Trump replies, "Are these the same highly qualified technical experts who advised you on wiping the data from your illegal mail server?"

The Internet grew out of research funded by the American taxpayer through DARPA. If anyone "owns" the web it's us. There is a law that makes such transfers of national property without congressional authorization unlawful, so why doesn't a federal court slap an injunction on this crap?

"I cannot understand Obama's policy or his willingness to act alone." Faux naiveté, right? I mean, this has been in the works for a while. It is one more way to take American down a notch. It serves the cause of anti-American globalism. It's the ideal prog policy. What's not to like? Thanks again for voting this guy into office, way back. Many of us could perfectly well understand who he was and what he would do.

And Trump is correct in saying that we could destroy bad parts of the Interwebs with a few rules. Cut a few Arab countries and Russia out of the loop. They'll get back in, but it'd be a costly, constant hassle for them.

I'm actually planning to move my domicile from Washington State to either Texas or S. Dakota in the near future. Or possibly Arizona, as I spend half the year there, anyway. Gotta be a red state. My vote for President never counts in WA.

The problem is leftist, globalist schemes that screw ordinary working and middle class Americans, promoted by the elites of both parties, and the Left of the Democrat party, which, sadly now, is redundant.

You may not like Trump for a host of reasons, many valid, some not. The leftist alternate is much, much worse. If you love Detroit economics, Chicago crime and San Francisco cultural values, then, Yes, by all means, vote Hillary!

"Perhaps Hillary could be asked to explain it at the debate that occurs before October 1st."

That should be the first question. "Secretary Clinton, you have suggested that the Internet should not be controlled by America. It's currently controlled by America, mostly through Internic and a bunch of American companies that supply most of the bandwidth and services on the Internet. What is your proposal to make this better?"

Yeah - if you can't trust the guy loved by BOTH Stormfront & Putin, who CAN you trust?

As if "Internet control" is a toy that Obama can toss around, or even something concrete existing in reality in 2016. PROTIP: Local autonomous Interwebs comes in a bloody package the size of a kids' lunch-box now & it's cheaper than a smart phone.

Trump yet again piles on his paranoid-critical hallucinogenic smarm & the usual throng of marks lap up every drop - Republicans have instantly morphed into liberty-lovin' heroes while torture, FISA Junior, both Patriot Acts & the Military Commissions Act are all magically dancing down the Memory Hole. That they're heroically "saving" the Internet not for any of you icky stinky meatbag citizenry but for Comcast, Apple, Disney, Google, Dell & their many politically sacred undead overlord brethren is by now predictable beyond the point of monotony.

Trump can't release his taxes without nuking his own campaign overnight.That's called a TELL, ladies & germs.

One candidate knows how to govern.One candidate does not - & he makes Boss Tweed look like fucking Benjamin Disraeli.Choose wisely.

This raises all kind of red flags and suspicions. I think the only reason it isn't a bigger issue is that it's technical and thus easy to obfuscate with a few comments about bandwidth vulnerability in high security hyperlinks. I just made that up. I'm sure a real computer expert could really fog this issue.....In any event, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Twitter all seem to be rooting for Obama and Hillary so I wouldn't take their word on this. The experts, the movie stars, the media, the rock stars, the priests......It really says something that I find a real estate developer to be the most credible and trustworthy person in public life at this moment.

Here's what I said when the WSJ covered this several weeks ago: "So we'll give this group the same powers that world soccer (FIFA) and the IOC and The International Track and Field organizations have. We can expect the same results; inefficiency and corruption." I can't improve on that.

One can see how the citizens of other countries that use the internet wouldn't necessarily trust the U.S. Department of Commerce to be fair to them. And didn't we just hear that President Trump wants to eliminate the Department of Commerce?

Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Yahoo are all headquartered in the United States. Yet the idea that the citizens of the US might control their access to the internet frightens the Hell out of them. Better that the infrastructure is controlled by a small group of unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats who can be easily bribed.Hillary is in favor of this as well. I suppose their will be room at the table for a CGI representative when they divvy up the loot.

@Lieutenant, as a former EM (SP5) I assure you that all lieutenants are bad news. Captains were okay and I never met a major I didn't like. Light colonels generally were starting to get stars in their eyes, at the expense of their humanity, and full birds broke down into two categories: they'd sell their grandmothers into slavery to get that star or they knew that they never were going to get a star and were mean drunks.

Interesting breakdown. I think the distribution may have changed somewhat, though. Haven't you heard the rank insignia joke with the punchline about since ancient times covering our pricks with leaves?

Obama, Hillary, and people on the Left in general want to censor internet content. If the US government is in charge of the internet, the constitution restrains internet content regulation, in the US at least. Isn't this the obvious goal?

Obama trusts and likes "the international community" more than he trusts and likes the United States. This is opening the door to, a few years down the line, the thugs who run a majority of UN members being able to control the internet by the assignment or de-registering URL's. If your URL isn't in the official registry the internet won't recognize it and you're just talking to yourself. Anything they don't like will be labelled "hate speech" and taken off the grid.

Obama, of course, is fine with this, wishes he could do it himself but is happy to leave it to others. Hillary obviously is, as well.

Some argue that this is a serious issue of American credibility--that's B.S. It's a contrived argument to get the US to surrender stewardship, and no doubt was all orchestrated with the Obama Admin.

The potential is huge and well-recognized by all those small-d democrats in places like China, Russia, and so on.

"Privates generally peel potatoes; sergeants yell at people, majors do the same except louder and with large moustaches; generals make speeches in front of enormous flags and captains narrow their eyes purposefully while scanning the coast for any sign of Bonaparte's ships. But colonels? No one knows."

In a statement, Yahoo said user information — including names, email addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates, passwords and in some cases security questions — was compromised in 2014 by what it believed was a “state-sponsored actor.” It did not name the country involved.

"Obama probably has ambitions to be Secretary General of the UN at some not too distant point."

In terms of reality that is a demotion from his current position.

Are you sure he thinks so? President of the world ?

Durning the Olympic Opening Ceremonies the organizers utilize a 'pool video feed' for all the world's broadcasters to share. It always struck me as a defining and a distinct cultural difference when whoever runs the feed felt it more important to broadcast 15 seconds of each nations athletes marching in with their flag followed by two minutes broadcasting that nations leader or bureaucratic representative waving frantically from the stands. I always saw Obama as someone who fantasized about being that guy waving frantically from the stands Olympics after Olympics.

Martin said...Obama trusts and likes "the international community" more than he trusts and likes the United States.

This is the reason. Obviously no comparison could ever justify this but people never subject their allies to the same standards as their enemies. Obama and the left are the world's allies against America.

I have yet to see a rational argument why there should be a change in the internet administration. Those above are, I think, correct in attributing this move to a lot of airy fairy liberal BS and Obama's insufficient Americanism. I mean ask yourself one simple question: Do I want the Chinese to have control over the Internet? How hard is that?

We're the only industrialized country to *outlaw slavery,*legalize women's suffrage*fight for civil rights, *conquer Fascism and free Europe from the Nazis, *conquer Japanese Imperialism and free southeast Asia from their tyranny,*go to the moon,*find a cure for polio,*find a cure for TB,*welcome massive refugees,*emancipate Kuwait & Iraq from Saddam Hussein's tyranny*invent the internet, the greatest vehicle of disintermediation in the history of the world, and which promotes freedom of speech, learning, and individual rights.All done mostly by white men.

And that is why Obama wants to give the internet away to our enemies! So others can make America look to be a whimpering shadow of its greatness by limiting the free flow of information. "Control the media, control the world." After all propagandists can't have people with access to alternative views that might become popular beyond their ability to control.

Neither the Left in general, nor Obama in particular, believe in American exceptionalism. They believe America is not special, benefitted from ill-gotten gains, and would rather it simply slide down the slippery pole towards atheism, socialism, and equal androgynous genderism.

This is the principle philosophic difference I have with the Left, and why I left the Democrat Party years ago, despite my Northern California roots. And, over the years, as I've softened on women's rights, gay rights, disability rights, minority rights (the arc of history!) and even come to better acknowledge some of the great misdeeds of our forefathers (Indian wars, slavery, excess corporate power, etc.), I still believe, on the whole, that when you tally up the historical pros and cons, America comes out well ahead.

So, that's why I stand for the National Anthem, don't loot, don't protest/riot, don't give $$ to my alma mater, generally support the police, and will vote for Trump in Nov.

Hahaha -- Wow! I've been quite amused at the inverse correlation of how little so many Americans know about ICANN Stewardship Transition is with how readily they're willing to demonstrate their ignorance. Not since the Net Neutrality debate have I seen so many- on both sides of the aisle- so willing to argue about something that they clearly do not understand.

ICANN Stewardship Transition would enable almost nothing of what Cruz and Trump say it would to "censor the Internet"; all the same, ICANN Stewardship Transition would do very little for Hillary's desire to "safeguard the internet’s openness for future generations." This is ridiculous hyperbole all around.

Who was it who said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt"? Methinks a whole lot of politicians, pundits and wannabe pundits would do well to heed that advice.

Bobby said: Wow! I've been quite amused at the inverse correlation of how little so many Americans know about ICANN Stewardship Transition is with how readily they're willing to demonstrate their ignorance.

That would be a direct, rather than an inverse correlation the way it is stated.

No, no, no, no no no no. Obama is not "giving away control of the internet" or anything approaching that. All we're doing is turning over ICANN which controls top-level domain names. And ICANN is multi-stakeholder which means it can't do anything unless all the members agree (now the DOC will no longer be in charge). The worst ICANN could do is, if everyone agrees, deny a website the ability to use obamastinks.com or whatever as their top level address. You could still access the website through direct addresses or through links or whatever.

It might or might not be a good idea. But the idea that were are giving up control of the internet to the UN is WND-level conspiracy theory fantasy.

Wholelottasplainin', everyone (but me) is not wrong. Just most of the commenters here. Mike at 7:28 explains what the stakes really are. It's nothing like Cruz, Trump or Hillary are trying to make it out to be.

A "community" of global elitists who will not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. Sounds a lot like the EU. What could go wrong.

It might or might not be a good idea. But the idea that were are giving up control of the internet to the UN is WND-level conspiracy theory fantasy.

Well, maybe. But if the top level control of domain registration is so trivial, why are these other countries interested in messing with it at all? Is there something ICANN is failing to do for them that they need?

While I tend to agree that this argument may be more overwrought than needful, to think that China & Russia want their hands on the till so that the planet may be made safe for freedom of speech & conscience seems to be an even more dubious proposition.

Bay Area Guy: ...and even come to better acknowledge some of the great misdeeds of our forefathers (Indian wars, slavery, excess corporate power, etc.), I still believe, on the whole, that when you tally up the historical pros and cons, America comes out well ahead.

(Nothin' personal in the following, BAG. That "great misdeeds" just set me off. Jus' sayin'. As long as we're doing the moral cypherin'...)

That's nice, but if you're doing a comparative tally-up, every nation would have those (or equivalent "great misdeeds") in their debit columns. Frankly, I think we were a healthier nation when we were proud of our nation-building conquests.

If we're so goddamned ashamed of it, give the friggin' land back. No? Then stuff the self-flagellation. At this point it's merely morbid and degrading. Aside from being impious - isn't it great to be so holy and smug in front of great-grand-dad's shade, sneering at him for doing all the dirty work of winning and settling this land that we now enjoy with our nice clean hands. (And a double fuck-you to the sanctimonious Americans who (or whose ancestors) swanned over here after all the heavy-lifting of conquest was completed and started moralizing. Too holy to fight and conquer but not too holy to show up to enjoy the peace, safety, and rule of law that the "bad guys" had established on the losers' lost territory. No, make that a triple fuck-you.)

Every piece of land on this planet was fought over, lost or gained through bloody conquest. If conquest made our forefathers evil men, then every human on this planet (except maybe some hapless Pygmies) has evil forefathers. It's somebody else's turn to grovel about it, our (America's, or the West's in general) turn has gone on long enough. And slavery? Stuff that, too. How 'bout we clear off the stage and let, hmmm, say, the Arabs and Africans who practiced it longer, enslaved my kind, and still practice it, crawl on their bellies in repentance for a while. No? Then how about all the whiners just STFU, game's over.

"If conquest made our forefathers evil men, then every human on this planet (except maybe some hapless Pygmies) has evil forefathers."

This, of course, is true. The thing is, we mostly ignore or deny that our nation was founded on plunder, slavery and genocide, and we boast of our unique virtue as if we were anointed by the gods as the world's chosen people.

We are not uniquely evil, but neither are we uniquely virtuous. We are behaving as every country behaves when it is the most powerful country in the world: we lie and cheat and steal and impose our power to get what we want and keep what we get.Other countries have behaved this way when they were global top dogs, and other countries after us will behave the same way once we are no longer the world's leading power...which could happen in our lifetimes, if the world of men isn't reduced to rubble and barbarism before then by natural or human cause.

The relentless march to globalization would not be so catastrophic if it weren't lead by class diversitists in the Pro-Choice Church who engage in progressive wars, support mass emigration (e.g. refugee crises), believe in trickle-up poverty, practice scientific mysticism, advocate for selective exclusion ("="), promote female chauvinism (i.e. anti-female, male, baby political/social ideology), maintain religious support for abortion rite, etc.

The "native" Americans lost their land before the arrival of Europeans to inter and intra-tribal warfare, slavery, genocide, class diversity, and abortion rites. Their strategic alliance with competing European powers only accelerated their progress into a world war.

Honestly, there isn't much of an upside- if I weren't watching Patriots and Red Sox at the bar(not that I'm a fan of either, mind you) and if you were really interested, I could explain the upside to ICANN Stewardship Transfer, but it's very minimal.

And that's kind of my point- if Cruz and Trump said, "it's such an insignificant change, why bother?" or if Hillary said "it's so insignificant, why not?" then I'd agree with them. But they're not. They're presenting it as being integral to the future of a free internet. And that's so fucking ludicrous it tells me they don't know what they're talking about. They're grandstanding, and the usual people are falling for the same usual bullshit.

The USA is the most generous nation on the planet. We have nothing--NOTHING--for which to apologize. Our American ancestors learned much from the natives and the natives were offered our culture, which, for the most part, they declined. My New England ancestors bought land from the Indians, they didn't steal it. I have copies of the deeds. Were the natives always treated fairly? No. Did they treat other natives fairly? No. Did they massacre settlers? Yes. Did settlers massacre natives? Yes. Did the Normans conquer England? Yes. Was England better off for it? Yes.

We have been brainwashed to believe that we are an evil culture. Well, spend some time abroad and you will see that there are plenty of cultures far more corrupt, amoral and treacherous than ours.

our nation was founded on plunder, slavery and genocide, and we boast of our unique virtue as if we were anointed by the gods as the world's chosen people.

Speak for yourself, Cookie. Amerindians paid for their 10,000 year isolation when they developed none of the immunity of the Old World to old world diseases. In fact, there is some evidence that they had reduced immune systems as autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis are less common in Amerindians. The contact with the Old World was devastating, but not because of any evil intent.

Africa was never successfully colonized by Europeans because the diseases, especially malaria, which sub-Saharan Africans had developed immunity to, killed off all Europeans until modern times when medicine could help.

Robert Cook: The thing is, we mostly ignore or deny that our nation was founded on plunder, slavery and genocide...

You're not stupid, Robert, but that is an utterly brainless statement. By "ignoring" it, you mean what, exactly? The current level of public school indoctrination on what an utter shit of an evil nation this country is and always has been just isn't as squalidly self-abasing as you'd like it to be? Ordinary Americans aren't turning over their assets and saving fasts enough for "reparations", or smooching the butts of the Truth and Reconciliation commissars enthusiastically enough?

...and we boast of our unique virtue as if we were anointed by the gods as the world's chosen people.

Whadda ya mean "we"? The only people I see blithering on these days about our special mission to be the world saver and universal nation for everybody are neo-con shits and globalist ideologues with a massive hate-on for ordinary Americans. And oh yeah, I'd put those "patriots" who claim devotion to "who we are" but bitterly resent the real nation into the same category as those aforementioned cons and cranks. (I'm lookin' at you, Cook.) "Who we are", "anointed by the gods", "chosen nation" - six of one...

gosh, friend don't let friends take howard zinn, seriously, but who would be the white knight who would replace us on the ICANN, the Middle Kingdom, Volodya's redoubt, they value intellectual property,

Rick, i don't mind you calling me pompous- it only demonstrates you can't address the issues so you revert to ad hominem. Years of working alongside liberals makes me immune to that tactic.

But (if you're on the Cruz/Trump side) tell me the credible scenario where ceding control over DNS possibly leads to the end of "internet freedom"? Or (if you take Hillary's side) tell me how not transitioning ICANN "jeopardizes the future of internet freedom"? Or don't answer because, until you opened Drudge this morning, you didn't know what ICANN even was.

I'll even wager that by mid-October someone will have filed a complaint with the international court that https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ is a hate site, demanding its entry be removed from the DNS tables. It won't end there.

"I'll even wager that by mid-October someone will have filed a complaint with the international court that https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ is a hate site, demanding its entry be removed from the DNS tables. It won't end there."

Alright, you've backed me into a corner, so with my honor on the line, I'll have to take action on that wager. $500, even money. Do you want to lock it in on betfair or should we do this in person- where do you live?

Problem is Bobby, anyone can file a complaint with ICANN about a DNS entry: https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/registrars/standards-complaint-form

You may as well just pay me now.

(The question is, who will hold ICANN accountable? And, if someone does get the international court to agree to a take down notice, odds are a parallel internet will grow overnight. Still, I gave you a scenario.)

"the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged." California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in California.

"But (if you're on the Cruz/Trump side) tell me the credible scenario where ceding control over DNS possibly leads to the end of "internet freedom"? "

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

Ben Rhodes.

There is not a single issue where this administration didn't lie to us. It is acting exactly like you would expect somone who hates this country and freedom would act. Obama cannot be trusted and this little change is not all we will give up. I guarantee they are lying about this treaty.

"Problem is Bobby, anyone can file a complaint with ICANN about a DNS entry: https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/registrars/standards-complaint-form

You may as well just pay me now.

(The question is, who will hold ICANN accountable? And, if someone does get the international court to agree to a take down notice, odds are a parallel internet will grow overnight. Still, I gave you a scenario.)"

No, I know- I have comment notification on, so I saw how you deleted your initial comment where you charged that they would be "demanding it be shut down" and replaced it with "demanding its entry be removed from the DNS tables." I actually commend you for realizing that your emotions caused you to overreach and replacing it with something much closer to reality.

That said, if on October 15th, you can show me said complaint on the registry-- i.e., that donaldjtrump.com is a hate site and requesting that its DNS be rescinded- I will pay you $500. If not, I expect you to pay me $500. Now this is a point of honor, so you shouldn't yourself file such a complaint simply to collect (nor should you should go solicit someone to do it on your behalf -- that's a Black Sox thing), but regardless, I'm a man of my word and will honor a $500 bet even when others cheat. What goes around, comes around, and all of that.

On a separate note, you do realize that the scenario you generated would be just as applicable under a DOC-controlled ICANN, yes? You're more or less demonstrating my whole point about the absurdity of the Cruz/Trump/Hillary hyperbole on this issue.

"There is not a single issue where this administration didn't lie to us. It is acting exactly like you would expect somone who hates this country and freedom would act. Obama cannot be trusted and this little change is not all we will give up. I guarantee they are lying about this treaty."

I don't know what "giving up control of the internet" or "ceding control of ICAAN" even means, but if Obama wants to do it it means it is not in America's best interest. Why would he do that and be so dead set about it? What is the purpose, and how could it possibly be "good" for America? "America first" does not even exist in the mind of this "citizen of the world". Of course, as usual, his apologists say that "there is NO EVIDENCE that this would harm the US", as they help him commit treason."Treason" is the only term defined within the Constitution, and for which the penalty is mandated. What is the penalty?

But (if you're on the Cruz/Trump side) tell me the credible scenario where ceding control over DNS possibly leads to the end of "internet freedom"?

Are you really j. farmer?Not a scenario, but a critical observation. How is handing over our internet to be overseen by countries that censor there own internet going to provide more internet freedom? Clean water/dirty water etc.

Honestly, there isn't much of an upside- if I weren't watching Patriots and Red Sox at the bar(not that I'm a fan of either, mind you) and if you were really interested, I could explain the upside to ICANN Stewardship Transfer, but it's very minimal.

I've got all the time in the world. Finish drowning your sorrows watching losers play, and whenever you're ready.

Trump yet again piles on his paranoid-critical hallucinogenic smarm & the usual throng of marks lap up every drop - Republicans have instantly morphed into liberty-lovin' heroes while torture, FISA Junior, both Patriot Acts & the Military Commissions Act are all magically dancing down the Memory Hole. That they're heroically "saving" the Internet not for any of you icky stinky meatbag citizenry but for Comcast, Apple, Disney, Google, Dell & their many politically sacred undead overlord brethren is by now predictable beyond the point of monotony.

Yes, let's give China and Iran a hand in running the internet. That will certainly make it BETTER.

And you're acting as if the Democrats oppose any of those bills you listed. They do not. Hillary is very much on board with all of them.

One candidate knows how to govern.One candidate does not - & he makes Boss Tweed look like fucking Benjamin Disraeli.Choose wisely.

I would hesitate to insult Tweed with a comparison to Hillary, personally.

Durning the Olympic Opening Ceremonies the organizers utilize a 'pool video feed' for all the world's broadcasters to share.

If I were NBC, I'd refuse. They spend a shit ton of money on that useless celebration in advances of performance-enhancing drugs. Either they use their own footage or they don't shoot at all and demand a refund of the TV rights.

"Not a scenario, but a critical observation. How is handing over our internet to be overseen by countries that censor there own internet going to provide more internet freedom? Clean water/dirty water etc."

So the simplest answer is that ICANN Stewardship Transition is NOT "handing over our Internet" to anyone, much less to countries that censor their own internet. If we were talking about a fictional initiative that actually would "hand over our Internet" to anyone, that would be a big deal and I'd understand the ire. But this is not that. And the fact that some of you are trying to equate the two is absolutelt hilarious.

ICANN- specifically, its Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)- performs technical work concerning the Internet's global Domain Name System (DNS), including introduction of generic top-level domains-- .com, .org, .net, .biz, etc. etc.-- and its root name servers. It assigns address blocks to regional Internet registries, which in turn allows you to type in blogger.com and come here (what is actually happening behind the scenes is that DNS is mapping to a bunch of numbers -- blogger.com is just this site's "callsign").

There's some opportunity for whomever controls ICANN to exert control over the assignment of TLDs- for example, congressional Republicans pressured ICANN for years to deny the introduction of the .xxx TLD to porn sites (conservatives finally relented in 2011, presumably because the .com domain had no problem proliferating porn sites and they realized that porn censorship- if it was even desirable- could not be achieved through ICANN). But as the .xxx experience demonstrated, ICANN itself doesn't have the ability or the authority to do that.

ICANN Stewardship Transition was actually agreed to back in 1998, and several amendments (of equally mundane nature as everything I disecribe above) was agreed to throughout the subsequent Bush and Obama Administrations. There's a good case to be made for questioning the Obama Administration's race to complete the transition (see here, for example) but Cruz and Trump's scaremongering tactics are not it.

We are not uniquely evil, but neither are we uniquely virtuous. We are behaving as every country behaves when it is the most powerful country in the world: we lie and cheat and steal and impose our power to get what we want and keep what we get.

9/22/16, 8:32 PM

That is some real nuclear grade stupid right there. If you truly believe that I feel sorry for you. That you can not noodle through the difference between America of this century and what it has done for the world versus what North Korea, China, Russia, or any ME country would do in our place if they had the same power and might is numbing.

Yes America is not perfect because it is made up of people but because of its founding principles and controlling documents, it has tried (and I believe succeeded) to do far more good in this world than evil. Can you honestly say a majority of the other countries of the world would do the same if in America's position?

Does that mean that we are without sin? Of course not but wallowing in the failures (and ignoring the successes) is not how you get better. It is simply nourishment for liberal guilt for their unearned success.

Nice to meet you Bobby.Thank you for that explanation.I'm jut concerned that countries with no vested interest in the freedom of speech aren't going to good stewards of the internet.For some odd reason, over the past decade, I've become rather possessive of my constitutional prerogatives.

"I'm jut concerned that countries with no vested interest in the freedom of speech aren't going to good stewards of the internet.For some odd reason, over the past decade, I've become rather possessive of my constitutional prerogatives."

And you should, as should all Americans. But, look, you should value your 2nd Amendment-recognized right to bear arms, but if your county announced that they were going to privatize the delivery of their water services, and some fellow started screaming that this was "proof!" that "the county is going to confiscate all of our guns!" .... you would immediately and intuitively know that this fellow didn't know what the hell he was talking about. This doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up for your right to bear arms- just that the debate over whether to privatize county water services is not really the right forum in which to make that stand.

The main difference here is that a lot more people seem to understand issues about gun rights and water services than they do how the internet works, so they were ripe for exploitation by Cruz and Trump's demagoguery on ICANN Stewardship Transition.

The Daily Signal piece that I linked to above rather closely matches my views on ICANN Stewardship Transfer, specifically: "[W]e are not questioning the continued need for multi-stakeholder governance. Quite the opposite. We worry that approving the transition prematurely will set the multi-stakeholder model up to fail." An extension with a "test drive" period would be a nice transition, but this isn't going to happen- the Obama Administration is determined to have their "legacy," and don't care if inefficiency and underperformance is the result of their haphazard initiatives (think of how they celebrate PPACA providing "universal" access (that isn't really universal) to health care despite its abject failure on cost, quality, choice, etc.).

On the other hand, I also don't want to excuse Cruz or Trump's behavior on this issue. Either (1) Trump didn't have sufficient knowledge of what ICANN does and didn't bother to engage an expert to brief him on the issue (which, btw, does not bode well for a guy who promises to heed the advice of his appointed experts) or (2) was briefed and knew damn well that ICANN Stewardship Transfer would have no relationship to Internet content control, but made the charge anyway in order to pander to uninformed voters who immediately and all-too-predictably fell for an outright falsehood simply because it reeked of "foreign" control.

Bobby, the only part of that article that [I thought] contained any justification for the move was the "international" worries in regard to the NSA. Everything else [in my mind] would justify leaving things as they are. In fact, moving it out of US control would just mean that instead of worrying about the NSA, we would also have to worry about their equivalent in other countries.

Yeah, it's probably more like not a lot of downside and little to no upside. Remember, the transition agreement was made long before the NSA's various surveillance programs were known to the public (in 1998, most of them weren't even yet in existence), so it had more to do with getting it out of a single nation's control and into a community- not of governments but- of technical, business, and civil society leaders who could more appropriately steer DNS's future in uncertain waters. A lot has changed in 18 years, though.

If you wanted the upside for why at least some Americans (as opposed to the federal government) might want ICANN Stewardship Transfer, you could probably start with Federalist No. 10- the letter where Madison talks about how the dispersion and diversity of factions throughout the US would better provide for the rights of (unpopular) minority factions and safeguard against tyranny in an individual state.

The .xxx TLD example I mentioned above makes a good case study: here were legal businessmen wanting to legally hire employees, operate and deliver their service and pay their taxes over a domain that would have better represented their corporate vision, and which technical experts concluded would actually make it easier for consumers to avoid unwanted exposure to pornography. Yet a single faction- Republicans in the US Congress- pressured ICANN to refuse the introduction of the .xxx TLD merely to demonstrate to their social conservative base that they were taking a stand against online pornography. It wasn't actually suppressing online porn, of course- anyone who has been to pornhub, xvideos, redtube or any number of other .com websites prior to 2011 knows full well that it was available (or... uh... that's what I hear), but as a political issue, it let Republicans fake it to their social conservative base. Now if your vision of government is that Congress should suppress legal content to which some Americans object, then maybe you want the federal government to have that power to pressure ICANN mmore strenuously than it can post-Transfer. If, on the other hand, your position is that the federal government shouldn't be exerting pressure to suppress other Americans' fully legal right to operate their legal (okay, sometimes barely legal) business, then maybe you see the upside to ICANN Stewardship Transfer.

Bobby said...Rick, i don't mind you calling me pompous- it only demonstrates you can't address the issues so you revert to ad hominem.

Ad hominem requires two elements only one of which was present in this case. So I'll add "not too perceptive" to your descriptors. There are ways to have discussions without being a pompous twit, hopefully you'll find one someday.

Or don't answer because, until you opened Drudge this morning, you didn't know what ICANN even was.

Or don't answer because it isn't relevant to my point, although your comment proves it.

If you wanted the upside for why at least some Americans (as opposed to the federal government) might want ICANN Stewardship Transfer, you could probably start with Federalist No. 10- the letter where Madison talks about how the dispersion and diversity of factions throughout the US would better provide for the rights of (unpopular) minority factions and safeguard against tyranny in an individual state.

That would be a good thing in and of itself, but all citizens of the United States enjoy the same constitutional protections. There are more than a handful of UN members who have no such regard for our or any one else's rights. Constitutional or no. In this case my concern is that many of the hands steering this have an interest in not having an open internet and once we let it go there will be no legal recourse in maintaining a free and open internet.

We're in perfect agreement, in the hypothetical case wherein control over Internet content was actually being transferred to someone somewhere. But ICANN does not have that control and, while I could devise a scenario wherein ICANN somehow develops, asserts and exerts that capability, I could also devise a scenario wherein North Korea develops a time machine, goes back in time to deliver nuclear weapons to Kim Il Sung, and they then use nukes to defeat MacArthur's UN forces in the Korean War -- the latter is only slightly more incredible than the former. Honestly, you're probably better off worrying that the county sanitation department's proposal to privatize trash collection is going to result in confiscation of all privately owned firearms.

1) I'm stupid. Stupid enough that I can't really see why there should be such a long, protracted, hard-fought effort to implement transfer stewardship of ICANN, which seems to be such a tiny, insignificant change.

2) Yet even in my stupidity, I have noticed many examples of apparently tiny, insignificant changes that have had a big effect. Indeed, much of the seamy side of lobbying is where lots of money and effort is invested have such tiny, insignificant changes put into legislation or executive policy.

3) While I was too stupid to understand the downside of these other changes to policy, I noticed that they did have a big effect, and those who lobbied for the changes tended to end up much better off, and me, not so much.

3) You're (and please don't take offense at this) also stupid. After all, you're wasting your Friday hashing this out in a comments thread -- if you were really smart, you would have something better to do. So I am somewhat skeptical about your reassurances that there is little downside for me.

5) Foreign countries really don't seem to care enough about human rights and freedom and all that jazz enough to engage in long protracted efforts like this. But I have noticed that for reasons of national interest, they can be pretty smart, and pretty persistent.

6) If this is just an Arrogant American issue, why stewardship ICANN? Why not, say, stewardship of the Acadamy Awards, or the burning man steering committee, or some other highly visible status thing that is controlled by Arrogant Americans?

5) The Internet is pretty valuable. Lots of commerce depends upon it. MY style of living depends on it. I may be stupid about how it works, but even so I can understand how the status quo benefits me.

In summary, This is a pretty clear example of Chesterton's gate. I don't need to know details about ICANN to oppose it. The fact that someone smart is unable to explain a compelling reason to me in simple terms that even I can understand and find convincing is reason enough to oppose it.

Honestly, you're probably better off worrying that the county sanitation department's proposal to privatize trash collection is going to result in confiscation of all privately owned firearms.

9/23/16, 12:33 PM

You say that and you may actually believe that BUT if it is really so innocuous why is President Three-putt so hell bent to get it done and done now? If it is no big deal, why does he make it a big deal? Why expend the political capital to get this done? Why waste the ink in his pen unless he is doing it for some purpose? Sorry but after the Clinton years and the [up to this point] Obama years, anything being pushed by this administration is already at least 50% suspect. Which is so surprising for what is supposed to be the most transparent administration ever!

"In summary, This is a pretty clear example of Chesterton's gate. I don't need to know details about ICANN to oppose it. The fact that someone smart is unable to explain a compelling reason to me in simple terms that even I can understand and find convincing is reason enough to oppose it."

I respect this position. In fact, in my comment at 8:51pm last night, I specifically noted that if the charge had been "it's such an insignificant change, why bother?" I don't really disagree with that.

But that isn't what Cruz, Trump or dozens of commenters on this blog said. No, Cruz presented it as "the future of a free internet is at stake!" if ICANN Stewardship Transfer goes through, and Trump and dozens of commenters on this blog- without even bothering to learn what ICANN is or does- proceeded to fall directly into lock-step proclaiming that "we're handing over control of our Internet to Russia and China!" I object to that kind of false and ridiculous hyperbole, whether it comes from ignorance or malice.

"You say that and you may actually believe that BUT if it is really so innocuous why is President Three-putt so hell bent to get it done and done now? If it is no big deal, why does he make it a big deal? Why expend the political capital to get this done? Why waste the ink in his pen unless he is doing it for some purpose?"

Ah, because in this case you have the process slightly reversed- based on the previously agreed timetable, the transition is going to occur on 30 Sep 2016 (really, 1 Oct 2016) unless President Three-putt were to put down his golf clubs, do the right thing, and have his officers draft an extension with the appropriate "test drive" autonomous parameters that would better ensure ICANN transition's success. But then it wouldn't happen on his watch, and- as with PPACA or withdrawing troops from Iraq- he'd rather risk failure than let someone else get credit for doing something he thinks will be part of his "legacy" (and it will, albeit for negative reasons).

And, in any case, even if he thought it would be a guaranteed disaster, it would still require work on his (and his incompetent subordinates') part to grant an extension, so he'd have to weigh that against missing time on the golf course. Or apparently getting ready for this season's NCAA Women's Basketball games.

I appreciate Bobby's write-up. His conclusions are lacking. Not sure why keeping pornography behind a curtain is such a bad thing from Society's perspective. Certainly the government should not be promoting pornography, which could be the case when an industry is granted its own TLD. Sure, what protections there are to allow parents to shield their children are easily defeated. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any. And the constitutional issue is important. For example, he states that giving the porn industry its own TLD (.xxx) would make it easier for consumers to control without acknowledging that it would make it easier for government to control the porn industry as well.If you can't see the slippery slope there, then I hope you stay indoors while in snowy climes.

I don't want the US to give up anything to some world body. Most certainly we should maintain legal ownership and continue to offer the weakened-but-still-viable constitutional protections our country uniquely offers.

That Trump or Clinton understand the issue is irrelevant. His gut reaction is to keep American control of as much of the internet as possible; hers is it is OK to relinquish parts of it. That's what America will see.

If framing the issue as 'giving up control of the internet' is unacceptable shorthand, let Mrs. Clinton make the case. I am sure she wants to spend time talking about TLDs and various TLAs, name servers, routing protocols, etc. all in support of giving up American control and ownership of some aspect of the Internet. She'd end-up looking like some walleyed-pike after it has been dragged up on shore.

You calling demagogic my calling Cruz and Trump on their demagoguery is demagogic in itself!

Seriously, guys, it's been real, but my ship is sailing. I most likely won't hear from you all after 30 Sep, since the UN is going to take control of the internet and I expect them to shut down all non-Leftist blogs within the first 24 hours, so do be safe and remember that TOR may not provide you with sufficient anonymity if you access it from low density areas-- so drive into town before you go on the Dark Web!

Of course. And that ever expanding mole on your back. Nothing to worry about.I was assured by some very serious and nearly convincing people that the Iran Deal was the best thing ever for the middle east. Based almost entirely on lies, the deal has transpired as I had predicted at the time.While you can sit there and tell my concerns would be better placed somewhere else my experience is telling that there are unintended consequences to this that will come back to bite us in the ass.So the next logical step for me is to ask; What's in it for you that you are defending it so vigorously?If there is so little change in transferring it why not just keep it?